Adding Shame On Top of Shame

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Contrary to what some may believe, it is never easy or enjoyable to write a critical commentary about those who have been friends or acquaintances or with whom we have been associated. Those who do not believe this, of course, will prefer to make all manner of judgments to the contrary that they will discover in eternity are very mistaken. To love God despite our sins, however, we must be detached from creatures as we show forth our true love for God and our fellow man by discharging the Spiritual Works of Mercy to those in error so that they can correct their ways before die.

Each of us is a sinner. Each of us is in need of the rod of correction being administered to us, first and foremost by ourselves as we make our nightly Examen of Conscience and as we meditate on the Four Last Things--Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell--before we go to sleep each night and then, of course, as we accuse ourselves before a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. Many of us have had that rod of correction administered to us my family members and friends to help us to correct errant ways or positions.

To admonish the sinner is not to condemn the person being admonished.

To admonish the sinner or to condemn a certain action or statement is not to pass any kind of subjective judgment whatsoever concerning the individual's culpability before God, which is known to Him alone.

To admonish the sinner or to point out errors publicly that have gone uncorrected after private entreaties is not to "hate" anyone. One of the cheapest emotional tricks in the book of mind-control is to attempt to claim that critics are motivated by "hatred" when expressing criticism, perhaps in very strong terms, of others on certain matters. How sad it is that so many in fully traditional circles have resorted to such cheap tricks so as to prevent a dispassionate review of statements whose truth or falsity exist independently of human acceptance and will be made manifest on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the living and the dead.

As I have noted on this site, there were those, starting with relatives in New Hartford, New York, on November 25, 1976, the day after my twenty-fifth birthday, who informed me about what they called a Judeo-Masonic-Communist plot against the Church, something that I was unwilling to accept at the time and considered to be beyond belief even though I knew that were "problems" with the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath. Others planted seeds a decade later on Long Island when they insisted that the conciliar "popes" were not true Successors of Saint Peter. I argued. However, I also listened. Each of these efforts to correct my view of the state of the Church Militant during this time of apostasy and betrayal were meant to prepare me for an acceptance over the course of time of that which I thought fantastic at first.

Our best friends are those who are willing to challenge us. There are times when such challenges may be erroneous and in need of correction or refutation. There are times when such challenges are necessary and very legitimate. We are not, however, to "resent" anyone who endeavors to discharge their duties to us as they see fit to do so.

Although, for example, I have no time to engage in colloquies with those who take issue with the articles published on this site, I do thank those who write for discharging their duties before God as they have seen fit to do so, recognizing full well that my work is fair game for comment and criticism.

We must bear with each other in charity during this time of apostasy and betrayal as we recognize that it is the conciliar revolution that has so insidiously divided families and friends from each other. I know for a fact that some former friends and students of mine who were once very supportive of my work back in the "conservative" days when I was active in pro-life circles in the 1980s and a writer for The Wanderer in the 1990s believed that I had, to use the phrase of one person involved, sadly, with "Communion and Liberation," "flipped my wig" when I wrote my tribute to the late Father Frederick Schell after he died on September 28, 2002, the Feast of Saint Wenceslaus. Many, many others, obviously, have said similar things in the past six and one-half yeas now since I came to recognize and accept the true state of the Church Militant at this time.

It is thus without any rancor or personal animus whatsoever that this commentary is written about a true priest who was a friend of mine for nearly twenty years, Father Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R., concerning his recent remarks, since recanted, blaming the victims of such predators as former Pennsylvania State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky for the abuse that they have suffered, claiming that they "seduced" the predators into acting as they did.

As the press reports on Father Benedict's remarks and his subsequent recanting of them are very incomplete and do not take into account that he had also blamed the "media" for exploiting the scandals that have exploded into public view in the past ten and one-half years after decades of their being the subject of reports in such disparate journals as The Wanderer and National Catholic Reporter, I want to take an opportunity in this commentary to provide some background that readers will not find anywhere in the "mainstream media."

Aware of the Predator Problem for Over Forty Years

Robert Peter Groeschel was born on July 29, 1933, in Jersey City, New Jersey. He is a true son of Jersey City, speaking in a thick "Joysey" dialect that he accentuates now and again to make a point. He entered the Detroit province of the Orders of Friars Minor Capuchin in 1951, spending his years in formation there, which is where he got to know and to be influenced by the saintly Father Solanus Casey, O.F.M., Cap.

Given the name of Benedict Joseph in the religious life after Saint Benedict Joseph Labre, Father Benedict Joseph Groeschel was ordained to the priesthood in 1959, eventually spending time assisting emotionally disturbed children after receiving a master's degree in counseling from Iona College in 1964 and, seven years later, a doctorate of education in psychology. He came to serve as the confessor of Terence "Cardinal" Cooke, the conciliar archbishop of New York (who was a true bishop) from March 2, 1968, to the time of his death on October 6, 1983, and Cooke's successor, John Joseph "Cardinal" O'Connor, who was the conciliar "archbishop" of New York (and not a true bishop) from March 18, 1982, to the time of his death on May 3, 2000. It was "Cardinal" Cooke who asked Father Groeschel to start a retreat house to counsel and direct priests, which is how Trinity Retreat in a beautiful, secluded part of Larchmont, New York, near Long Island Sound in Westchester County, New York, was started in 1974.

Father Groeschel first came to my attention in 1981 when a man in the conciliar presbyterate who was in my acquaintance for twenty years and for whom I pray every day despite our present differences, told me that the Capuchin friar had said in a seminary class at Immaculate Conception Seminary in Huntington, New York, in 1973 that there was a problem of homosexuals in the priesthood that would explode into public scandal within twenty years and shake the faith of many Catholics as a result if it was allowed to remain unchecked.

That statement made quite an impression on me when I was told about it thirty-one yeas ago, which is why it was unfathomable to me that Father Groeschel wrote a book, From Scandal to Hope, in 2002 blaming the media for exploiting the clergy abuse scandals when he knew full well that the scandals were going to explode into public view. Sure, the "mainstream media" is filled with those who hate the Catholic Church. So what? It was the conciliar officials who are responsible for the scandals exploding into public view after decades of recruiting, protecting and promoting homosexuals into its ranks as priests/presbyters and by attempting to intimidate and/or pay off victims to maintain a veil of secrecy over what many knew for a long time before Mrs. Randy Engel assembled all of the pertinent facts in The Rite of Sodomy for publication in 2006. Mystifying was how I described my reaction to Sharon when I learned of From Scandal to Hope. Truly mystifying.

I met Father Benedict Joseph Groeschel in October of 1983 when he gave a talk at Holy Apostles Seminary. He was very funny. Indeed, he was hilarious in his discussion of what I thought at the time were only "problems" in the Church that I came to recognize later were signs of apostasy. I approached him after his talk and thanked him for giving it, being struck by his kindness, which was very sincere and entirely unaffected. I told him that I was teaching a graduate course on Saturday mornings at Saint John's University, whereupon he invited me to stop overnight at Trinity Retreat house in Fridays so that my trip to Saint John's University in Jamaica, Queens, New York, down from Cromwell, Connecticut, would not be so rushed. I accepted the offer, staying there a number of times in the 1983-1984 academic year on those weekends that I did not stay with friends of mine in Oyster Bay.

Father Benedict was very good to poor souls such as this writer who had nowhere to go on Thanksgiving Day and Christmas. He gathered quite an interesting collection of people on these occasions, and I will be forever grateful to him for having invited me to Trinity Retreat to enjoy the Catholic camaraderie. He took time to visit with each of those he invited, which was fairly amazing given the fact that he spent almost every morning on the telephone to counsel people for an hour before getting about the work of the retreat house or his other work, which included his work with broken priests and the network of homes for unwed mothers that he co-founded with Christopher Bell, whose wife, Joan Andrews Bell, was a Catholic pioneer in the effort to save the innocent preborn by personally placing herself in front of the killing centers and who has spent much time in jail, both before she was married and thereafter, including solitary confinement, as a result.

Father Groeschel himself would be arrested numerous times in what became known as "Operation Rescue," whose participants were sometimes subject to the most violent and shocking examples of police brutality that this country has ever seen (see Justice Denied Is Only Justice Delayed, written two years before I came to recognize the true state of the Church Militant), and was an outspoken opponent of chemical and surgical baby-killing under cover of the civil law. Father Groeschel spent time in jail in Atlanta, Georgia, when he was arrested along with others, including friends and former students of mine, during the Democratic National Convention that nominated the pro-abortion Greek Orthodox Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Michael S. "M-1" Dukakis and the pro-abortion United States Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas). He has never been any kind of friend of the conciliarists who have preferred silence on the slaughter of the preborn, although I did overlook the fact that he was very impressed with and was a participant in various "ecumenical" events that I know now make more possible the wanton killing of little babies under cover of the civil law.

Additionally, it should be pointed out that Father Groeschel did indeed understand the infestation of homosexuals in the conciliar clergy, including in his own Capuchin order, which was a contributing factor to his forming the Congregation of the Franciscan Renewal (C.F.R.) in 1987 along with his desire to live a more austere life of poverty and to be of greater, more direct service to the poor. (I made pizzas for Father Benedict's friars on two occasion at their residence in the "Fort Apache" section of the south Bronx, hearing gunshots in the distance on one occasion in a very rough neighborhood.) He was under no delusion about the rot that existed in the conciliar clergy and mocked Modernist Scripture scholars in his conferences and evenings of recollection, which I would attend very frequently (as I did for those given by the late Father John A. Hardon, S.J., in the years when he was giving conferences in the New York City-Long Island metropolitan area).

Here are few tidbits from some of those conferences that will reveal a priest who, though steeped in the conciliar revolution in so many ways, still retrained a good deal of basic Catholicism, which so many of us "conservatives" saw in the 1980s as "good enough" when things in our parishes and dioceses were so very bad.

Father Groeschel gave a parish mission at Saint Ann's Church in Garden City, New York in 1990, using the closing conference to deride those who bowed rather than genuflected before what is purported be Our Lord's Real Presence in a tabernacle in a conciliar church.

"Saint Francis of Assisi prostrated himself in front of Our Lord in His Real Presence. Today, though, He [Our Lord] gets a head bow. Soon he'll get a wink, two winks if He's lucky."

At the Church of Saint Thomas More in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, Father Benedict used an Advent evening of recollection in December of 1990 to ask a wonderful rhetorical question that loses a lot in translation as he delivered it with his thickest possible Jersey City, New Jersey, dialect and with a stroke of his beard:

"These Scripture scholars who say that Our Lord did not know He was God until after the Resurrection [pausing for a moment] What did they do? Go up and ask Him?"

It was a a few months later at the same church that Father Groeschel again mocked Scripture scholars during a Lenten evening of recollection:

"We Franciscans have a seven decade Rosary. One of the Glorious Mysteries is the Apparition of Jesus to the Blessed Virgin Mary after the Resurrection, and this drives the Scripture scholars absolutely crazy!"

Decrying the state of popular culture in the United States of America, Father Groeschel said on the first evening of a parish mission at Our Lady of Mercy Church in Hicksville, New York, near the end of the Gulf War in February of 1991 that we were not living in age of paganism:

"Please, I'll take a good pagan any day of the week. At least they had a sense of piety. We are living in the midst of barbarians today."

Taken individually, these remarks gave Catholics attached to the conciliar structures who were starved for a semblance of orthodoxy what we thought was a breath of fresh air. Then again, Modernism being what it is, Father Benedict Groeschel, then still a member of the
Orders of Friars Minor Capuchin, had said in 1986 during a day of recollection at Saint
John the Baptist Church near Pennsylvania Station in the Borough of
Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, that the "problems" in the
Church began after the "Second" Vatican Council with a man who had been a
missionary bishop to Africa by the name of Marcel Lefebvre. Even though
I was not ready to recognize that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was an
apostate and that conciliarism was a false religion, I thought that
Father Groeschel's observation was very harsh. Why the hatred for a man who simply was trying to
defend the Faith?

This bias against tradition would come to mind seventeen years later when the conciliar "bishop" of Galveston-Houston, Texas, wanted to send Father Stephen Zigrang to go for psychological counseling, preferably with Father Groeschel after he, Father Zigrang, said the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition at Saint Andrew Church in Channelview, Texas, on July 28 an July 29, 2003, explaining that he would never say the Novus Ordo again. Father Zigrang himself told me at the time that he had heard that Father Groeschel believed that any attachment to the "old Mass" was a sign of mental illness. Instead, Father Zigrang made a retreat at Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, and returned to Texas in a different location, Our Lady of Angels Church in Dickinson, which is administered by the Society of Saint Pius X.

My own contact with Father Groeschel diminished in the late-1990s during my indulterer years as I was on the road a lot giving talks when I was not teaching at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University. I did stop by one occasion in 1999, I believe, to spend some time in prayer before what I believed to be the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament, encountering him taking a stroll on the grounds. It was then that he told me about that the the Vatican was supporting in the 1990s the training
of seminarians for the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (CPCA) in
American seminaries, including Saint Joseph's Seminary, Dunwoodie,
Yonkers, New York, which is the seminary of the Archdiocese of New York.

Father Benedict
told me that this was all "hush, hush," as he termed
it, and that the situation in Red China was very complex, full of double
and triple agents. Father Groeschel said that the training of the CPCA
priests at Saint Joseph's had the approval, at some level or another, of
the Vatican. The hope was to "integrate" CPCA priests, who had to
support the government's anti-life policies, into the life of the
underground Church when a "reconciliation" could occur at some point in
the future. We can see how well that worked out (see A Betrayal Worthy of the Antichrist, Red China: Workshop for the New Ecclesiology, Red China: As Red As Ever).

The coup-de-grace for me, however, came on September 11, 2002, when I watched him on the Eternally Wishful Television Network (EWTN, which had been hijacked away from Mother Angelica, who had her moments going after some of the conciliar "bishops," especially Roger "Cardinal' Mahony, who saw to it with his friends in the Vatican that she wound up being punished for criticizing his "pastoral letter" on the "de-Europeanization" of the conciliar liturgy, Gather Faithfully Together) say, and I am paraphrasing here, "These people who say that God the Father willed the death of His Son on the Cross, the greatest crime in history," going on to disparage what he considered to be a blasphemous belief.

This was my "He's flipped his wig" moment insofar as Father Groeschel was concerned. I shut off the television in our basement apartment in Bethpage, New York, and then wrote an article on the equally egregious remarks that had been made that same evening by Edward Michael "Cardinal" Egan in a "homily" during a Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service on the first anniversary of the tragic events on September 11, 2001 (see No Room for Christ at Saint Patrick's Cathedral, written, of course, over three and one-half years before I found my way out of the "resist but recognize" swampland after having abandoned the world of indultery; one can see from this article, however, that I was a "practical sedevacantist" even though I did not realize it at the time). And it was around that time that Father Groeschel published from Scandal to Hope that caused me to roll my eyes and simply continue my prayers for him. "Shooting the messenger" does get rather old over the course of time. Very old.

Not So Uncharacteristic After All

Thus it is that Father Groeschel's interview in National Catholic Register in which he said that clerical abuses were "seduced" by their victims in many instances and that such abusers should not be subjected to civil penalties for their first offenses is not out of character with what he has been saying for the past decade now.

Indeed, he was, at least on two occasions when we were acquainted, a little too ready to disbelieve reports that those he knew were guilty of being clerical abusers.

At first unwilling to believe that his friend, Father Bruce Ritter, O.F.M., the founder of Covenant House for runaway teenagers, was such a predator when news about this came out in 1989, Father Benedict had the honesty to admit he was wrong, telling me, "Tom, I would have bet the farm on Bruce Ritter. And I would have lost the farm!"

This was not the case, however, in the middle-1990s when Father Benedict Groeschel insisted in a telephone conversation with me that priest in the Diocese of Albany who had been named as a clerical predator by Wanderer reporter Paul Likoudis, whose dogged criticism of the leaders of he called Amchuch saw him denounced as "evil" by Rembert George Weakland, O.S.B., the conciliar "archbishop" of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from 1977 to 2002 (see Weak In Mind, Weakest Yet In Faith and Just A Matter of Forgiveness?), was innocent. As it turns out--and to the surprise of no one who knew anything about the Diocese of Albany for the past thirty-five years under the revolutionary leadership of "Bishop" Howard Hubbard, who was appointed by Giovanni Montini/Paul VI on February 1, 1977, when Hubbard was only thirty-eight years of age, which means that he has another two years to go until the official retirement age in the conciliar church, there was indeed a nest of homosexual clergy there, something that a priest who was later found dead under mysterious circumstances explained to John "Cardinal" O'Connor in 1995 letter (Priest's mysterious death clouds efforts to clear his name and Agony in Albany Revisited). Paul Likoudis had his facts straight in the 1990s. Father Benedict Groeschel did not believe this to be the case.

The comments made by Father Groeschel last week, therefore, must be seen in the context of his history of understanding the general problem of perversity in the conciliar clergy while seeking to exculpate those guilty of perverse crimes by either denying that a particular individual is guilty or seeking to shift the blame to the victims, which is what some on the traditional world have done when clergymen they "like" are the subject of accusations about their questionable behavior.

Father Groeschel's belief that first-time clerical abusers should be sent to prison because they did not "intend" to commit any crimes, contrasts sharply with the punishment that Pope Saint Pius V said that clerics caught in such perversity should face:

That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene
cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us
most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a
crime with the greatest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this
decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature
. . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery"
(chap. 4, X, V, 31). So that the contagion of such a grave offense may
not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which
is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish
the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not
frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be
handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces
civil law.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which we have
decreed since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any
priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits
such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of
every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical
benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge,
let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to
death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have
sunk into this abyss. (Pope Saint Pius V, Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568)

Just a slightly different
approach, wouldn't you say? A true pope understood the horror of such a
detestable sin on the part of the clergy and sought to administer
punishment to serve as a medicinal corrective for other priests and to
demonstrate to the laity the horrific nature of such a moral crime. A
priest who should know better seeks to find excuses for men who should never have been ordained (installed) in the first place. Quite a different approach.

Mind you,
I am not suggesting the revival of this penalty in a world where it
would not be understood and where the offender would be made a "martyr"
for the cause of perversity, only pointing out the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that clerics and others in ecclesiastical authority who
are guilty of serious moral crimes are deserving of punishment, not
protection, by their bishops. Such is the difference yet again between
Catholicism and conciliarism.

Additionally, far being serving as "seducers" for predators, whether clerical or lay, such a Jerry Sandusky, those who have been victimized by predators have permitted themselves to be "groomed" by those who seem to have a preternatural sense of their vulnerability to become objects of their perverse pleasure.

Mrs. Randy Engel described the process of "grooming" as follows in Chapter 8 of her book, The Rite of Sodomy:

Grooming is a complex process used by
pedophiles and pederasts to gain access to and secure their victims and
to decrease the likelihood of discovery by parents and police.[1]
Through the process of grooming the pederast gains the child’s trust,
breaks down his defenses and inhibitions, manipulates him into sexual
activity, and secures a promise of secrecy that seals the sexual
bargain.

According to psychologist Anna C. Salter,
“The establishment (and eventual betrayal) of affection and trust
occupies a central role in the child molester's interactions with
children. ...The grooming process often seems similar from offender to
offender, largely because it takes little to discover that emotional
seduction is the most effective way to manipulate children.”[1]

In the Sandfort study, in all cases, it
was the pederast who introduced sex into the relationship. None of the
boys had either the knowledge or the experience to initiate what were
essentially advanced homosexual techniques. Some were introduced to
homosexual acts by viewing male pornography. Over a period of time, some
became proficient enough to take an active role in the homosexual
encounters. A small number of boys permitted oral-anal contact
(rimming). Among the least desirable sex acts engaged in by the boys
were sodomy and ingesting ejaculate during oral sex. Not surprisingly,
the pederast got “better sex” from older boys than the younger ones who
were genitally immature and sexually passive. Sandfort quoted Brongersma
(1975) that an important element in the satisfaction that a pederast
experiences is derived from the lust which the boy experiences after
being initiated into homosex, that is, the pedophile/pederast gets
pleasure in corrupting a virgin.

A number of boys in the Sandfort study
said that the element of secrecy in their sexual pact with the pederast
contributed to fear and anxiety they experienced over possible exposure
of their activities to their parents or police authorities. And Sandfort
himself admitted, that most parents would react with horror if they
knew their child or children were involved in such a thing.

It appears that most of the boys Sandfort
interviewed seemed to be unaware of the degree to which they had been
sexually and emotionally manipulated by the adult sexual predators.
Almost all described their association with the pedophile/pederast in
positive terms, i.e., “friendship,” and “companionship. ” They also
indicated that they were attracted to the pederast because he permitted
them to indulge in freedoms like smoking and drinking that their parents
would not permit. Nevertheless, a few of the older boys who had
developed normal heterosexual relations with girls were able to
distinguish between “sex” with the pederast and the “love” that they
felt for their girl friends. (Mrs. Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, Chapter Eight.)

What applies to children applies as well to
young men who have maintained their purity intact, especially, as noted above, those men
whom predators seem with almost preternatural sense about them to be
emotionally vulnerable. The goal in this "grooming" is to create
ambivalence of emotions within the soul of the victim so that he, the
victim, will think that he is being "loved" and given "attention" when
the fact of the matter is that he is being emotionally manipulated to be
a toy in the control of the "groomer."

These facts are sometimes lost on those who are immersed in psychology even though they may be Catholics. It appears that Father Benedict Groeschel has lost sight of the horror of personal sin and that those who are steeped in the degradation of perversity and thus become obsessed with the pursuit of their perverse "pleasures" so as to stalk and then strike against the victims whose very person they must dehumanize in order to justify their sick behavior. Perverse lusts ensnare a soul deeply into the grip of the devil and his demons, driving men to proceed along courses of action that are harmful to themselves, both spiritually and bodily, and to those upon they prey.

To attempt to excuse, if ever for a moment, such behavior by blaming the victims for the crimes committed against them is to add shame on top of the shame produced by the shameful manner in which the conciliar officials have been solely responsible for these scandals becoming so numerous as to shake the faith of many Catholics, something that a priest named Father Benedict Groeschel, who said earlier this year that women could be made "cardinals" in the conciliar church, noted thirty-nine years ago now. Alas, the view that Father Groeschel expressed recently and then recanted is very common in chancery offices and in the Vatican itself. It is not an anomaly whatsoever.

If this is true of the effects of perverse sins against nature on the immortal souls of those steeped in them, it is also true of those who are trapped in the ethos of Modernism in the counterfeit church of concilairism and thus do not realize how they offend God regularly by offering a worship that is false and teaching a doctrine combines both truth and error so as to confuse and bewilder the faithful.

While I continue my prayers for Father Benedict Groeschel in what is surely a difficult time for him, this difficult time is of his own making as he has chosen to put psychology before the Holy Faith and as he has accepted and participated in the great liturgical abominations and doctrinal aberrations of a false church whose leaders care not to offend Christ the King and to harm the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. I pray that Father Benedict will come to see the errors of concilairism and speak out as forcefully against them as he has against some of the "abuses" that are not "abuses" at all but simple manifestations of the rotten fruit of a false religion. And, as attorney James Bendell will note in an upcoming article of his, Father Benedict Groeschel's abilities as a psychologist are not what the founder of the Friars of the Franciscan Renewal believes them to be, at least insofar as giving a "clean bill of health" to Father Carlos Urrutigoity, the morally corrupt founder of the Society of Saint John, which, though having been suppressed by "Bishop" Joseph Martino, whose hard line against Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., caused the conciliar Vatican to push him aside as the "bishop" of Scranton, Pennsylvania, has been reorganized in the Diocese of Ciudad del Este in Paraguay under the protection of an Opus Dei "bishop," Rogelio Liveres Plano.

Here is a Yahoo Babel Fish translation of the testimony given "Bishop" Liveres Plano in defense of Father Carlos Urrutigoity, who molested seminarians both in Argentina and the United States of America when serving as a cult leader within the Society of Saint Pius X before his perverse behavior was made manifest in Pennsylvania, including Father Groeschel's "findings" about the molester.

As is standard in these cases, were also extensive psychological assessments of father Urrutigoity. For
more objectivity and independence criteria, there were two independent
evaluations of one week each: one carried out by the Rev. Father Benedict Groeschel, Franciscan priest and renowned U.S. psychologist., and the second by the Southdown psychological Institute of Canada. The two agree categorically clear heterosexuality of the priest, and that there are no pathologies. To
not extend me unduly, I quote only a passage reports (Fr. Benedict
Groeschel, CFR, Ed.D., Counseling Psychologist, October 27, 2001): "in
regard to the concerns raised against him about immorality sexual that
some have argued, is not any indicator of something of this type... some
right-wing conservatives are so paranoid that they are perfectly
capable of killing the good name of someone ', without absolutely no evidence more than his [right-wing conservatives'] own suspicions... "I have seen nothing in these tests and reports that can point out the minor sign of homosexual tendency".

Finally, I would like to give my personal testimony. I have known the father Urrutigoity and his family since 1991. This
has been added direct experience that I've had him as a priest in the
Ministry which has exercised under my direct supervision over these
three years in my diocese. During two of those three years, he has lived with me in the bishopric. I must highlight their very correct priestly behaviour, its pastoral effectiveness and delicate obedience. I have also received very positive testimony of many faithful who have known him here in Paraguay. In
addition, I would like to express my admiration for the spiritual and
human quality of the members of the communities of San Juan that have
accompanied to the Pbro. Urrutigoity in my diocese. (Carta Informativa sobre el Pbro. Carlos Urrutigoity.)

It is a terrible, terrible thing to reckon with the fact that one might be responsible for the loss of a single soul. It is thus the case that that while decry the insensitivity to the loss of souls demonstrated by the conciliar "bishops" and others, including the coaches and administrators at Penn State University, we must never lose sight of how we might have demonstrated this insensitivity in our own lives. The loss of the Faith in a single soul is indeed very much a very serious matter to God, and thus it must be for us. This is true for all us, especially for a priest, something that Saint Anthony Mary Claret observed after difficult sea voyage from Navarre to Rome caused him to eat salt-water soaked bread while he gave away gold coins that had been given to him by a benefactor onboard the ship with him to Benedictines, who then used the coins to buy money at the ship's store:

"Perhaps, had they [his fellow shipmates] seen me sitting at table partaking o rich meals, they might have criticized and depreciated me, as I have seen done to others. Virtue, then, is vitally needful to the priest, whom even evil men expect to be good. (Fanchon Royer, The Life of St. Anthony Mary Claret, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, p. 48.)

In this world of such evil in which we have played our own roles on so many occasions, may we continue to live as penitentially as possible as we seek to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, including the sins of the conciliarists against the Faith and of anyone in the underground church in this time of apostasy and betrayal who dares to grow righteously indignant when actions that are indeed quite serious to God come to public light. We cannot minimize sin and get to Heaven. While we must be charitable to our fellow erring sinners, the most charitable thing that can be done for one who gives signs of predatory behavior is to remonstrate with him that he must cease his actions at once lest we become his accomplices in his future sins.

May the Rosaries we pray each day help to bring about the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and of Christendom in the world.